[smg]

I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

The remedy that the original article suggest is right on point. The way search systems work these days is by learning from how users interact with them. Google's market share ensures that it will always have access to more tail queries and user's intent while asking them. Building a better search engines than Google is no longer about hiring engineers or investing in data centers, it is about having access to the data that Google has on searches. Just like the DOJ forced Microsoft to document and provide API's that were being used by IE and Office to all software companies, a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly.

[gaius]

a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly.

The only thing worse than Google having everyone’s search history is forcing them to reveal everyone’s search history. The data should be destroyed and new data not gathered.

“You googled X on date D therefore we have concluded Y is a preexisting condition and your claim is denied”

[nappy-doo]

Depending on the data, Google anonymizes the data in 30-180 days (most things are ≤34 days, and 180 is reserved for search).

[TeMPOraL]

A friendly reminder that there's no such thing as "anonymized data", there's only "anonymized until combined with other data sets".

[ryandrake]

A textbook example is the AOL search history release [1]. They went to the trouble of wiping user account information but left anonymous (but unique) per-user numeric identifiers. Oops, someone didn't think that one through.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak

[Anon1096]

How is that an example of one of the failures of anonimization of data? To me it just looks like AOL did a shitty job, not that the concept as a whole is a lost cause.

[TeMPOraL]

Most breaches happen because someone "did a shitty job".

The truth is, you're doing a shitty job if you don't recognize anonymization for what it is - essentially trying to have a cake and eat it too. In practice, it has specific constraints that must be met, and I'd judge the difficulty of doing a good job here to be similar to rolling out your own crypto. That is, unless you're a good statistician, you're better off not sharing the data (or not having it in the first place) than releasing it "anonymized".

[joshuamorton]

Disagree. You can anonymize and aggregate data such that any data that could deanonymize would also allow you to fully reconstruct what you're looking at. Then you aren't adding any information.

As an example, a list of Google searches, aggregated at the minute level, is a useful dataset, but it won't tell you anything about my search history unless you already have my search history, in which case you already knew the answer.

[TeMPOraL]

To take your example - assume I target you personally, and beyond the list of Google searches, I managed to get hold of the list of times (with minute-or-better precision) you made requests to Google Search (say, I hacked/subpoenaed your ISP). Taken together and if large enough, the two datasets would allow me to build a statistical profile of your possible interests - even though in the original dataset you're bucketed together with lots of people, each time you do the search (second dataset) you're bucketed with different people.

Gaining access to other data - like e.g. your country of residence + aggregated popularity of search terms for each country - would let me refine your statistical profile further.

[joshuamorton]

That would potentially work, but I expect that it would require a dataset of size larger than the average lifespan of a person (2.4 million google searches per minute).

[lozf]

And isn't Googles method of anonymization simply to "blackout" the last octet of each users IP, so in many cases one wouldn't even need much in the way of additional data.

[harlanji]

Sounds like incentive to regulate then. That they presently have the data and it's private is worse than it being totally public. If it's acted on now it'll just be by a better connected actor against somebody unaware they can even be acted upon in those ways.

[conanbatt]

Privacy is an illusion, and measures designed to protect privacy end up protecting the ones that have exclusive access to it.

[ErikVandeWater]

Two responses.

1. Although I see your point that search queries could be dangerous, Google would never allow such use of search queries. Using search queries from a given person to market them products is one thing, but using it against them is a different beast that would horribly hurt the Google brand. And although one could imagine a court order being used to get a user's history, establishing a pre-existing condition is not enough of a benefit to go through the trouble of getting a court order for search history (and would likely not be granted, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence).

2. There are a hundred reasons to search any given query. If an insurer is using such an insubstantial basis to establish a pre-existing condition, the actual problem is that the insurer has too much market power and can be (for lack of a better word) an asshole without losing customers.

[RhodesianHunter]

You appear to be replying to a comment without having read or understood any of the context?

The thread is discussing a case in which Google would be forced to release all of this data via court order, so your first bullet doesn't make sense as Google would have no choice in this theoretical scenario.

[s73ver_]

"2. There are a hundred reasons to search any given query. If an insurer is using such an insubstantial basis to establish a pre-existing condition, the actual problem is that the insurer has too much market power and can be (for lack of a better word) an asshole without losing customers."

So, in other words, acting like a typical US based health insurer before the Affordable Care Act came into law.

[bhauer]

> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

I don't use Google much, so I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate on what makes switching to another search engine ridiculous?

I might be unaware of what I am missing. Web searches are a pretty low-frequency, low-importance action for me. Thinking now of what I use search engines for, I suspect many of my searches are simply to confirm the domain name of a site I am vaguely familiar with, and any search engine can do that. For me, Amazon's dominion in online sales (something I use routinely) is more ominous than Google's dominion over search and advertising (something that I use so rarely).

Google could disappear tomorrow and I would scarcely notice.

That said, the reason I rarely use Google services is because I don't trust them and don't like their business model. So while I agree conceptually with the notion that we need to encourage alternatives, I disagree with the method to reach that end. I don't think exercise of government power is correct; I feel exercise of consumer choice is more appropriate. As a Netscape/Mozilla user in the late 90s, I felt the same way about Microsoft, and ultimately feel the government's suppression of Microsoft hurt the industry in several ways that are difficult to quantify.

[InternetUser]

> Web searches are a pretty low-frequency, low-importance action for me.

Web searches are a very high-frequency, high-importance action for me--I do dozens of searches every day--and Google Search, whether for text, images, videos, or physical addresses, is so much more superior to any other search engine in thoroughness and organization, that there is, quite simply, no question about it.

[jacksmith21006]

Agree,. What worries me is this talk of doing something against Google will make it so I can not search as easily as I can today.

I do think someone can easily use Bing if they want and it is even easier to type. But I chose to use Google because when I have compared Google is just a lot better. Why should Google be penalized for that?

If people want to use something else then use something else and leave me alone and my choice.

[jordache]

>I don't think exercise of government power is correct; I feel exercise of consumer choice is more appropriate.

The fault with your idea is that consumer choice that organically influences the market will always lag greatly relative to immediate & absolute government regulation. Sometimes, the correction on a monopolistic with consumer choice alone can not be achieved.

[s73ver_]

While that's true, search is nowhere near the point where it needs government action.

[mattlondon]

I switched to DuckDuckGo a while ago for all my personal devices/profiles and I have not looked back since. Quality of results is on a par to what I had using google.com. I still use gmail and youtube etc. Just change the settings in your browsers and you're done - takes about 11 seconds.

The barrier to entry for someone like DDG is actually quite low I think - just have a look at how their traffic is growing (https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html) and they're making a profit while doing it (http://fortune.com/2015/10/09/duckduckgo-profitable/). DDG has proven that you can make a growing, profitable business in search that provides decent results without needing a million AI engineers mining the search data. I don't know what Bing search is like profitability-wise, but I am sure it is doing OK.

I'd be keen to hear why you think that switching to another search engine is ridiculous? I cant think of any reasons why?

I have no data, but I reckon that most users wouldn't even notice/realise if they were using another search engine (of course, the HN readership would notice immediately - we're not representative) , and I also reckon that of those that do about half of those would only realise because the look & feel is mildly different! :-) Based on my experience I really dont think they'd notice due to the quality of the results.

But hey, I guess there are people who have niche queries they'll pull out to prove why DDG/Bing is inferior to Google. I guess some people dont remember what it was like before Google! The results from competitors are good IME.

[arstin]

"I'd be keen to hear why you think that switching to another search engine is ridiculous?"

I think you answered your own question: "I reckon that most users wouldn't even notice/realise if they were using another search engine".

For example, the other night I wanted to watch a movie. I entered the title in the Chrome address bar. Google was automatically used of course (yes it's customizable through a few menus, but for most people that means it's auto Google). The first result had an option to rent the movie. I clicked "Rent". Google Play was used of course. And I gave Google $3.

I don't personally mind this particular case, having long ago made the conscious choice to use Google Play over Apple or Amazon...or...ummm...for renting movies (mostly early Chromecast support). But it's a simple illustration of how Google isn't just a "search engine" that pulls up information you query when you want to surf the information superhighway. It's the automatic background interface for a great number of activities we do in our life. The fact most people probably don't even realize that is exactly one problem.

(And this has solutions of course, but it's one point to keep in mind.)

[mattlondon]

I appreciate your point, but the same thing happens in DDG? Enter a movie (e.g. I used Jurassic Park) and I have links in more-or-less-the-same-place to iTunes or Amazon. You could have just as easily given your $3 to those services had you used DDG.

I dont see how that DDG's approach is "ridiculous" compared to how Google does it? Seems like the same sort of background interface to doing "stuff" on the internet, just a different URL. Sure Google have got a joined-up ecosystem (just like Amazon & Apple do), but I dont think in this scenario it presents any real benefits to the end user? You pays your money, you sees your dinosaurs.

Sure people need to switch search engines, and sure people probably wont switch, but I dont think people's laziness/unawareness to switch is justification enough to classify Google a monopoly when viable alternatives exist.

It might be better for browsers to provide a randomised-order "search engine choice screen" on installation about what engine to use, rather than just default to something (a bit like what MS had to do with Browsers IIRC). At least that might stop people getting auto opted-in to using to whichever company have the best relationship with the browser developer.

[arstin]

Yeah, I guess I agree with everything you say, really. But since you emphasize asking about the "ridiculous" quality, I'd just propose what's ridiculous (kinda? but too strong) is that switching from Google to DDG is just a matter of changing URLs for most people. Even going to a different search engine URL probably assumes a way more sophisticated mental model of how the web works than most users have. Second, the input box at google.com is just one way to do things through Google, there's also OK Google for example (which is built into many people's only internet devices), and of course the browser address bar.

I do wonder how problematic it is that the fact Google has it's fingers in a steadily increasing amount of stuff---from medicine and cars to music and home management, all centered around capturing and storing an increasing amount of our personal data---isn't as explicit to most people as it ought to be. Personally I don't have an opinion on whether or not Google should be considered a monopoly, though I'm glad other people are considering the issue more seriously than I.

[ebikelaw]

That seems like a weird example. I just searched for the last film I watched - “Hud” - and Google gives me four options to rent the film, one of which is Google and three of which are not. It is hard to see how Google is harming consumer access to films.

[arstin]

Indeed! Google seems to have been doing a good job so far of trying to preempt being called a monopoly by not really abusing their power. (On the consumer services level at least, no opinion here on others.)

[jcadam]

I'm trying to use DDG as much as possible. The biggest obstacle for me at this point is muscle memory. I've been typing google.com for so long whenver I need to search for something that breaking that mindless habit has proven difficult :)

For some reason, I didn't have as much trouble shifting from altavista and lycos to Google (did I just date myself?) :D

[svachalek]

Every browser made for years just lets you type search terms in the address bar. You never need to go to google.com or duckduckgo.com or anywhere else to search, just set the search engine for the browser. (Not to mention bookmarks were invented in... 1995?)

[jcadam]

Bah, my first browser was lynx: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser) on a dial-up UNIX shell account.

I've set DDG as the default search engine in all of my browsers, but I still mindlessly plug google.com into the address bar anyway.

And also I tend bookmark webpages and then forget that I've done so - which means I end up searching for them again anyway.

I know, I have a problem. :)

[elgenie]

Saying that there haven't been any antitrust cases against Google and Facebook is simply inaccurate. Google got popped with a 2.4 billion euro antitrust fine for abusing their search monopoly just last summer (example source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-brac...).

[ocdtrekkie]

Yes, but there have not been any in the US. (This is likely because of the amount of money Google 'invests' in politicians.)

Note that the EU case is only the first of three EU antitrust cases against Google. They're also about to get hit with (rumored to be even larger) fines for abuses with Android and AdSense.

[ohtwenty]

What about the other way around? Much of Google is US-gov't-funded

[Cthulhu_]

> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

It's not though; people have a choice in this case, not so when it comes to e.g. ISPs or cell phone operators.

[Zhyl]

And more people seem [0] to be exercising that choice.

[0]https://duckduckgo.com/traffic.html

[jxdxbx]

Well, users can easily switch, to an extent (Google increasingly ties its services together, meaning you lose out if you use other Google products but not search).

But, if you depend on incoming Google traffic, you can't "switch." It is this side of the equation where Google's search dominance is troubling. That, and ads.

[wbl]

Ever pick up a tourist map? It's a pay to play list of recommendations.

[sillysaurus3]

This implies that a monopoly is bad.

The government realizes how powerful Google's monopoly is. It's a monopoly on information. And that implies a monopoly on the rest of the world – at least, the part of it that uses Google.

Any litigation would be spearheaded by the government. As long as Google plays ball with the backroom deals, they have nothing to worry about. If the NSA couldn't tap into the data behind their backs, they'll do it clandestinely but with Google's knowledge.

This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. You're right that Google faces a monopoly breakup. But that gives the government all kinds of leverage into their treasure trove of human interaction.

[ucaetano]

> I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

Can you point to a clear case of consumer harm?

Antitrust doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist to protect companies, but consumers. Ad prices have gone down, service prices have gone down, product prices have gone down.

[mercutio2]

The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm) a bit over the last few decades. They’ve applied their powers barely at all to monopsony during the same time period, but I don’t think there’s nearly as broad agreement as you imply that those powers shouldn’t be applied to monopsony.

[ucaetano]

> The executive branch has chosen to exercise its anti-trust powers against monopoly (which is often reduced to consumer harm)

Those two aren't necessarily related. From an economic (and therefore a regulator's) perspective, a monopoly means being able to extract monopolist prices from the market. That hasn't happened in the tech industry.

The prices that matter (ad prices) have been going down dramatically over the years, with plenty of competition. The issue comes up every year at Google's and Facebook's earning calls.

There is no economic monopoly. There could potentially be one in the layman's use of the word and in specific markets.

This is similar to looking at Coke. There are markets (Brazil, for example) where Coke controls >95% of the cola market. Some would say it is a monopoly, but they are missing the point that the cola market doesn't exist in isolation, as it competes with the overall soda market, water, alcoholic beverages, and even the guy on the traffic light selling bags of orange.

[Balgair]

Here's a good book on the subject that recently came out: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N4VV7B6/ref=as_li_tl?ie...

And here is a good podcast between the book's author and a former lawyer: https://www.artofmanliness.com/2018/01/18/world-without-mind...

The issue about monopolies goes back to Robert Bork: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

Also, try using DuckDuckGo or Startpage:

https://www.startpage.com/eng/?

https://duckduckgo.com/

[laura2013]

I agree and that might soon change. Missouri’s attorney general has launched a probe into Google. Others might follow suit soon. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/conservative-bac...

[losteric]

> a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly.

I'd rather see legislation against private entities aggregating that information. Honestly, Google's search has been getting worse for me as they optimize towards a more general audience.

[jacksmith21006]

Curious why it is ridiculous to sugest that you can just type bing.com instead of google.com?

It is two characters less? Not saying it is or is not but more curious the rational for your thinking?

It is not like Google blocks MS as far as I am aware from crawling their properties and YouTube search on Bing is excellent.

[briandear]

> a case today that forces Google to share all the data that it collects on searches would help break its monopoly.

Not just no, but absolutely hell no. Currently, I can choose or not choose to agree to Google's policies or use or not use their services, but essentially open-sourcing their dataset where it can be used by literally anyone? I don't trust Google a lot, but I trust them far more than <insert random company I've never heard of.>

[wbl]

And that makes Google noticeably worse then it used to be for many queries.

[aaron-lebo]

Right, so how much of a moat is that data really?

[dominotw]

> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

I've had this exact argument here on HN in the past many times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045653

> It takes me all of 10 seconds to type duckduckgo.com, and maybe 30 to switch default search engines for the browser.

I personally think this monopoly is way more evil and insidious that ISP monopoly. It should bother us way more than net neutrality but for some reason it doesn't. I suspect because google and co are considered to be on "our side" and would be generally good for society.